4.2 Article

Intraspecific and interspecific aggressive interactions between two species of fire ants, Solenopsis geminata and S-invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), in Taiwan

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASIA-PACIFIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 93-98

Publisher

KOREAN SOC APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.aspen.2014.09.003

Keywords

Formicidae; Fire ant; Aggression; Mortality; Heterospecific

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC 101-2621-M-126-003-, NSC 101-2621-M-002-029-]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fire ants represent a considerable hazard for humans and animals living in areas where they are introduced. Currently, two species of fire ant, Solenopsis geminata (Fabricius) and both social forms of S. invicta Buren, have been accidentally introduced into Taiwan. In this study, we conducted a series of behavioral assays to examine the aggressive response of two species of fire ants, using individual and group assays. Workers of S. geminata, monogyne S. invicta, and polygyne S. invicta achieved low mean scores for their responses in conspecific interactions, but did exhibit significantly high aggressive responses in heterospecific interactions. The results demonstrate that 51.7% residents and 23.1% intruders played first attacker roles in individual aggression assay. After the interspecific individual aggression tests, the results show that polygyne S. invicta had the lowest mortality among the three fire ant forms. In interspecific group aggression tests, S. geminata experienced the highest mortality compared with that for both social forms of S. invicta. The results in this study can be used to partially explain the behavioral responses and competitive ability of two species of fire ants in aggression bioassays. (C) 2014 Korean Society of Applied Entomology, Taiwan Entomological Society and Malaysian Plant Protection Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available